When Free Speech Is Not Free Speech
Many years ago, Evelyn Beatrice Hall tried to capture the essence of Voltaire's beliefs in a statement often wrongfully attributed to Voltaire himself, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (The Friends of Voltaire, published 1906). This is often trotted out as a defense of free speech, which is something we are having a lot of trouble with these days.
Another line getting a lot of play lately is something Winston Churchill said in October of 1943, where he was speaking in parliament about free speech; the slightly edited version of what he said is, "Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."
The story prompting these thoughts is that of a professor down in the States who has been publicly anti-war, anti-involvement in Iraq, and consistently decries the almost reverent hero-worship that the United States now has for its soldiers. True enough, in an effort to be contrary to the aftermath of Vietnam, where returning soldiers were often treated with disrespect and disdain, it has become almost a rote that, upon learning that someone has served in a branch of the military, the other person responds with, "Thank you for your service." This professor does not share these feelings, never has, and, true to himself, was disgusted when a first-class passenger on his plane gave up his seat to a soldier in uniform; he tweeted that he was fighting the urge to either vomit or shout questions about Mosul (where US troops are now trickling onto the front line in the battles against ISIS, an act which, with mission creep, could eventually end up with entire US military formations involved in direct combat, and where civilians are in mortal jeopardy).
He has the right to feel that way.
He has the right to think that.
He has the right to say that.
He feels that the soldier is a fool who has bought into an image and a self-image that is destructive to himself as an individual and possibly the world as an ultimate extension, who has no idea of the "big picture" when he's hunkered down in a fighting hole or going after the target on the next hill. He sees the soldier as an ignorant pawn in a much bigger game, being told that it is well and good to lay down his life for an idea as fleeting as "glory" and "honour" when it's more likely to secure access to oil rights by big business that will fleece him for every dollar he has once he puts his uniform away.
He has the right to feel that way.
He has the right to think that.
He has the right to say that.
However, with the lovely reality that is social media, many are angrily declaring that he does not have that right, that he can not be allowed to say this and "get away with it," that saying such a thing is abominable, disgraceful, and should not be allowed! He should be punished, like the young woman who made the casually racist tweet as she boarded her flight to South Africa a few years ago and got off the plane to find that she no longer had a job and every nation in the world knew her name, her face, and so much more. A "tolerant" society cannot tolerate this...
...?!?
Free speech has limits, yes. Speech that incites hatred, encourages violence, promotes destruction of persons or personal belongings cannot be tolerated. Speech that erodes feelings of personal safety or directly threatens bodily harm or death cannot be tolerated.
But speech that objectifies individuals? Speech that paints a certain subset of humanity with a certain broad brush? Speech that is rude, or offensive, or insulting, or aggressive...?
That falls into a gray area. It has to. And, in many ways, it has to be allowed. Even though it hurts, it has to be allowed.
There was a TV show that took this on a few years ago with an episode in which a white teacher in a predominantly black school in Boston tried to have his class unpack the word "nigger." Most of his students engaged him in the exercise; one complained. Other black teachers got absolutely up in arms about it. They demanded that the teacher be either disciplined or fired, saying that he, as a white man, did not have the right, the power, the ability to understand what he was working with in examining that word. Coming from the mouth of a white man, they said, could only be heard as hurtful and demeaning, no matter his intentions (nobody would listen to him about it), no matter the depth of his preparation (it was ignored or shouted down), no matter his own experiences (as a white many, they were invalid). Free speech could not truly be free.
Then there was the day when my son came home from school saying that someone in his class had said "a bad word", the "F" word, do you know which word I'm talking about, Mom and Dad? We said that we did, and to facilitate the discussion, we said that we were going to use the word in the conversation, because it wasn't about anybody, we weren't saying it to anybody, we weren't using it to hurt anybody, etc. The next day, at school (he was in grade 2 at the time), the door shut in his face, he stubbed his toe, and he used the word. Loudly. When the teacher confronted him about it, he said that his parents had said it was all right, that he wasn't using it about a person, that he hadn't said it to a person, that he hadn't said it to hurt anybody... and that his parents had said that it was okay to use it under those circumstances! We were asked to talk to him about it later, but I actually think the lesson that he learned on that day was that that particular word had a lot of power, used in a certain way.
There are a lot of people who say a lot of stupid things in our society today. Our neighbours to the south elected a veritable lawn sprinkler of crap-from-mouth sayings (or crap-from-fingers, as he, too, tweets endlessly!). Some say wrong things that are in need of correction with facts. Some say offensive things that need to be told their words have hurtful impacts upon others. Some say stupid things that evoke looks of bewilderment, looks that say, "my potted plant has more sense than you!" But saying that a partcular group of people offends you may well be offensive, but you should be free to express that thought! However, to then say that that group needs to be beaten, brutalized or slain simply for being in that group (for which they may not have had a choice in the slightest!), that is the line that crosses into that which must actually be actively suppressed.
But it's a biiiiiig gray area!
Another line getting a lot of play lately is something Winston Churchill said in October of 1943, where he was speaking in parliament about free speech; the slightly edited version of what he said is, "Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."
The story prompting these thoughts is that of a professor down in the States who has been publicly anti-war, anti-involvement in Iraq, and consistently decries the almost reverent hero-worship that the United States now has for its soldiers. True enough, in an effort to be contrary to the aftermath of Vietnam, where returning soldiers were often treated with disrespect and disdain, it has become almost a rote that, upon learning that someone has served in a branch of the military, the other person responds with, "Thank you for your service." This professor does not share these feelings, never has, and, true to himself, was disgusted when a first-class passenger on his plane gave up his seat to a soldier in uniform; he tweeted that he was fighting the urge to either vomit or shout questions about Mosul (where US troops are now trickling onto the front line in the battles against ISIS, an act which, with mission creep, could eventually end up with entire US military formations involved in direct combat, and where civilians are in mortal jeopardy).
He has the right to feel that way.
He has the right to think that.
He has the right to say that.
He feels that the soldier is a fool who has bought into an image and a self-image that is destructive to himself as an individual and possibly the world as an ultimate extension, who has no idea of the "big picture" when he's hunkered down in a fighting hole or going after the target on the next hill. He sees the soldier as an ignorant pawn in a much bigger game, being told that it is well and good to lay down his life for an idea as fleeting as "glory" and "honour" when it's more likely to secure access to oil rights by big business that will fleece him for every dollar he has once he puts his uniform away.
He has the right to feel that way.
He has the right to think that.
He has the right to say that.
However, with the lovely reality that is social media, many are angrily declaring that he does not have that right, that he can not be allowed to say this and "get away with it," that saying such a thing is abominable, disgraceful, and should not be allowed! He should be punished, like the young woman who made the casually racist tweet as she boarded her flight to South Africa a few years ago and got off the plane to find that she no longer had a job and every nation in the world knew her name, her face, and so much more. A "tolerant" society cannot tolerate this...
...?!?
Free speech has limits, yes. Speech that incites hatred, encourages violence, promotes destruction of persons or personal belongings cannot be tolerated. Speech that erodes feelings of personal safety or directly threatens bodily harm or death cannot be tolerated.
But speech that objectifies individuals? Speech that paints a certain subset of humanity with a certain broad brush? Speech that is rude, or offensive, or insulting, or aggressive...?
That falls into a gray area. It has to. And, in many ways, it has to be allowed. Even though it hurts, it has to be allowed.
There was a TV show that took this on a few years ago with an episode in which a white teacher in a predominantly black school in Boston tried to have his class unpack the word "nigger." Most of his students engaged him in the exercise; one complained. Other black teachers got absolutely up in arms about it. They demanded that the teacher be either disciplined or fired, saying that he, as a white man, did not have the right, the power, the ability to understand what he was working with in examining that word. Coming from the mouth of a white man, they said, could only be heard as hurtful and demeaning, no matter his intentions (nobody would listen to him about it), no matter the depth of his preparation (it was ignored or shouted down), no matter his own experiences (as a white many, they were invalid). Free speech could not truly be free.
Then there was the day when my son came home from school saying that someone in his class had said "a bad word", the "F" word, do you know which word I'm talking about, Mom and Dad? We said that we did, and to facilitate the discussion, we said that we were going to use the word in the conversation, because it wasn't about anybody, we weren't saying it to anybody, we weren't using it to hurt anybody, etc. The next day, at school (he was in grade 2 at the time), the door shut in his face, he stubbed his toe, and he used the word. Loudly. When the teacher confronted him about it, he said that his parents had said it was all right, that he wasn't using it about a person, that he hadn't said it to a person, that he hadn't said it to hurt anybody... and that his parents had said that it was okay to use it under those circumstances! We were asked to talk to him about it later, but I actually think the lesson that he learned on that day was that that particular word had a lot of power, used in a certain way.
There are a lot of people who say a lot of stupid things in our society today. Our neighbours to the south elected a veritable lawn sprinkler of crap-from-mouth sayings (or crap-from-fingers, as he, too, tweets endlessly!). Some say wrong things that are in need of correction with facts. Some say offensive things that need to be told their words have hurtful impacts upon others. Some say stupid things that evoke looks of bewilderment, looks that say, "my potted plant has more sense than you!" But saying that a partcular group of people offends you may well be offensive, but you should be free to express that thought! However, to then say that that group needs to be beaten, brutalized or slain simply for being in that group (for which they may not have had a choice in the slightest!), that is the line that crosses into that which must actually be actively suppressed.
But it's a biiiiiig gray area!